By now many people who follow the ongoing saga of the Russian collusion hoax know that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith has agreed to a plea deal. Despite the smokescreens put up by various MSM outlets, Clinesmith knows he is caught and has decided to be first to admit his guilt. The nature of the current charge against him strongly hints that he has much to offer the prosecutors. How many others will be caught in this web of deceit, lies and quite possibly seditious conduct?
One person who seems especially nervous is Andrew Weissman. Although not the titular head of the Special Counsel’s staff, it is widely known that Weissman was running the day-to-day activities of the Mueller Witch Hunt.
Jonathan Turley, a well-known expert on constitutional and criminal law has published a column on Weissman’s recent shenanigans. Turley wrote,
Recently, Weissmann wrote an extraordinary and disturbing New York Times op-ed (with former Defense Department special counsel Ryan Goodman). In the column, he appeared to call on Justice Department lawyers to undermine the Durham investigation as well as the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Bash’s investigation into the “unmasking” requests by Obama administration officials. They wrote “Justice Department employees in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.”
Consider that line for a moment. Weissmann is openly calling on attorneys to refuse to help on investigations that could raise questions about his own decisions. Durham is looking at a pattern [of] errors, false statements, bias, and now criminal conduct in the Russian investigation. There is obviously overlap with the Mueller investigation which discussed many of the same underlying documents and relied on work by some of the same individuals. The failure to address misconduct, bias, or criminal conduct by such individuals would be embarrassing to both Weissmann and Mueller. Despite that obvious conflict of interest, Weissmann is calling on attorneys to stand down.
This is just incredible. In some worlds Weissmann’s “advice” might be considered a threat. In effect, Weissman is saying that to look into his work and decision-making is both illegal and unethical. In a world where Joe Biden is President and China is calling the shots, that might be true. But, not in the world of Bill Barr and John Durham who are trying to restore the rule of law in this country.
After the Clinesmith information made it out into the news cycle, Weissman tried to conflate the Flynn case with Clinesmith’s.
Jonathan Turley ravaged that idea.
First, Weissmann is completely distorting both the law and the facts to disregard the significance of this guilty plea. The fact that Page was a source for the CIA is not disputed. The Horowitz investigation and various congressional investigations have confirmed that the CIA made clear to Clinesmith that Page was working for United States intelligence, a fact that critically undermined the basis for the original application for secret surveillance. The statement that “no where does the charge say that is false, i.e. that Page was a source for the CIA” is bizarre. The charge is that Clinesmith made this false statement to the court and there is a wealth of evidence to support that charge. It was clearly enough to prompt Clinesmith to take a plea and enter into what appears a cooperative agreement with prosecutors.
Second, the claim that “Clinesmith gave the complete and accurate email to DOJ” would not negate the charge. It was the false information that he gave to the court that mattered. Prosecutorial misconduct often involves telling courts something different from what is known or discussed by prosecutors. Moreover, the implications of such a contrast adds to the need for the investigation that Weissmann has sought to hinder. If other DOJ attorneys and investigators knew that the court was being given false material information, the concerns are magnified not reduced for the Durham investigation. Indeed, it means that this investigation dragged on for many months despite other attorneys knowing that the original claims of Page being a Russian assets were directly contradicted by American intelligence and never disclosed to the Court.
This is a very interesting point that Turley is making. The hint here is that many DOJ personnel knew that the court was being given false information. Assuming that is the case, this is a basis for a wide-ranging conspiracy investigation. And that appears to be what we are seeing with John Durham’s investigation.
Turley then went on to tear down Weissman’s case against Flynn.
Flynn was the incoming National Security Adviser and held entirely lawful discussions with Russian diplomats. Even James Comey told President Obama that the discussions were “legit.” Moreover, in December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as “cutting off” another high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn.
All three officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation. Recently disclosed material indicate that Obama, Biden, and other discussed the use of the Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations with foreign governments. The Logan Act is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic.
All of this and more misconduct has been the basis for dismissing the charges against Michael Flynn. There is absolutely no comparison to the Clinesmith situation.
A question that arises is this. Does Weissman’s public effort to impede the Durham investigation constitute obstruction of justice? Is Weissman calling on old pals at the DOJ to slow down the investigation in the hope that Joe Biden might win the Presidency?
Biden and other Democratic leaders have argued against continuing Durham’s investigation. Now that criminality has been found, Democrats and commentators still insist there are no reasons to continue it. This is despite an ever-growing mountain of evidence detailing misconduct by DOJ employees.
We often heard at the early stages of the Trump presidency that the walls were closing in, that PDJT and his family would be marched out of the White House in handcuffs. Do the Democrats now see the walls beginning to close in themselves?
It may be time to buy some popcorn.